Ansel Adam Act H.R.5893

On 1/21/2015 11:36 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 1/21/2015 11:00 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 1/20/15 9:55 PM, in article , "Davoud"
wrote:

Tony Cooper:

I rarely find anything to like about Texas politicians, but
U.S. Representative Steve Stockman (R) is now on my "like" list.

He is the sponsor of the Ansel Adams Act (H.R. 5893) that will protect
the rights of the First Amendment rights of photographers from
regulations and prohibitions by the federal government.

Read the article at
http://petapixel.com/2015/01/09/opin...devil-details/



The full text of the proposed legislation is at:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...bill/5893/text

What a looney bin Texas is! The First Amendment does not require
supplements for photographers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers.

If Texas lawmakers want to do something useful they should focus on
fixing their schools (among the worst in the country), safeguarding
women's rights, and getting serious about water conservation.

Proving again that you don't know **** from Shinola:

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/

The WORST? Where all of the a-holes work: D.C., no surprise there...

Texas has one of the best, if not THE best economies of any state,
and guess
what? NO Income Tax. One of a few in the whole nation.

I bet you are from a ******** like Chicago or Detroit, where DimRats
have
been running thing and stealing the people blind.

Wendy Davis got her ass handed to her, because she supported "women's
rights" of abortion on demand, as she should have.

You ever hear of something called a "drought", like what is happening in
SoCal at this moment. Tell us how YOU would manage and control
weather, oh
grand BS master?


And oil has nothing to do with the economy. IOW every time I fill my
car I am paying taxes to Texas.

I completely disagree. Since we have to pay less for our energy, we
have more disposable income to spend on other things. That will help
the economy. We were paying four buck a gallon not long ago. We're
paying almost half that now, that leaves extra money in out pockets to
spend on something else.

I was talking about why tere is no State income tax in TX. It's the
extration tax on oil that keeps the TX economy strong.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Agreed. Those rights need to be spelt out to the various enforcement
agencies. Park Rangers and other LEOs need to know the difference
between a commercial shoot requiring permits and appropriate waivers,
and a hobbyist photographer, or tourist snap-shooter. They need to
understand that violations of those fundamental rights could be career
damaging. It seems like another training issue to me.
An enhanced version of the First Amendment is not necessary.


In one of our State parks the Ranger in charge insists he can tell a pro
from an amateur, just by looking at them. His theory is that if you use
a tripod and gray card, you must be a pro. A letter to his supervisor
solved the problem.

you should write a letter to the mayor of new york city, since they
also use a tripod as the differentiator.

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 1/21/2015 11:36 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 1/21/2015 11:00 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 1/20/15 9:55 PM, in article ,
"Davoud"
wrote:

Tony Cooper:

I rarely find anything to like about Texas politicians, but
U.S. Representative Steve Stockman (R) is now on my "like" list.

He is the sponsor of the Ansel Adams Act (H.R. 5893) that will
protect
the rights of the First Amendment rights of photographers from
regulations and prohibitions by the federal government.

Read the article at
http://petapixel.com/2015/01/09/opin...devil-details/



The full text of the proposed legislation is at:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...bill/5893/text

What a looney bin Texas is! The First Amendment does not require
supplements for photographers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick
makers.

If Texas lawmakers want to do something useful they should focus
on
fixing their schools (among the worst in the country),
safeguarding
women's rights, and getting serious about water conservation.

Proving again that you don't know **** from Shinola:

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/

The WORST? Where all of the a-holes work: D.C., no surprise
there...

Texas has one of the best, if not THE best economies of any state,
and guess
what? NO Income Tax. One of a few in the whole nation.

I bet you are from a ******** like Chicago or Detroit, where
DimRats
have
been running thing and stealing the people blind.

Wendy Davis got her ass handed to her, because she supported
"women's
rights" of abortion on demand, as she should have.

You ever hear of something called a "drought", like what is
happening in
SoCal at this moment. Tell us how YOU would manage and control
weather, oh
grand BS master?


And oil has nothing to do with the economy. IOW every time I fill my
car I am paying taxes to Texas.

I completely disagree. Since we have to pay less for our energy, we
have more disposable income to spend on other things. That will help
the economy. We were paying four buck a gallon not long ago. We're
paying almost half that now, that leaves extra money in out pockets
to
spend on something else.

I was talking about why tere is no State income tax in TX. It's the
extration tax on oil that keeps the TX economy strong.

It's more than that, Texas has a far more favorable business climate
that helps to keep their economy strong. New York is at the bottom of
the list of business-friendly states and it's no surprise that people
keep leaving the state.

On 1/21/2015 1:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Agreed. Those rights need to be spelt out to the various enforcement
agencies. Park Rangers and other LEOs need to know the difference
between a commercial shoot requiring permits and appropriate waivers,
and a hobbyist photographer, or tourist snap-shooter. They need to
understand that violations of those fundamental rights could be career
damaging. It seems like another training issue to me.
An enhanced version of the First Amendment is not necessary.


In one of our State parks the Ranger in charge insists he can tell a pro
from an amateur, just by looking at them. His theory is that if you use
a tripod and gray card, you must be a pro. A letter to his supervisor
solved the problem.

you should write a letter to the mayor of new york city, since they
also use a tripod as the differentiator.

Why!
Besides your informaton is outdated. So long as the tripod does not
cause an obstruction,you are OK

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Agreed. Those rights need to be spelt out to the various enforcement
agencies. Park Rangers and other LEOs need to know the difference
between a commercial shoot requiring permits and appropriate waivers,
and a hobbyist photographer, or tourist snap-shooter. They need to
understand that violations of those fundamental rights could be career
damaging. It seems like another training issue to me.
An enhanced version of the First Amendment is not necessary.


In one of our State parks the Ranger in charge insists he can tell a pro
from an amateur, just by looking at them. His theory is that if you use
a tripod and gray card, you must be a pro. A letter to his supervisor
solved the problem.

you should write a letter to the mayor of new york city, since they
also use a tripod as the differentiator.

Why!
Besides your informaton is outdated. So long as the tripod does not
cause an obstruction,you are OK

who defines what is an obstruction?

if a cop says you're obstructing something, are you going to argue or
pack your stuff and move?

On 1/21/2015 3:02 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Agreed. Those rights need to be spelt out to the various enforcement
agencies. Park Rangers and other LEOs need to know the difference
between a commercial shoot requiring permits and appropriate waivers,
and a hobbyist photographer, or tourist snap-shooter. They need to
understand that violations of those fundamental rights could be career
damaging. It seems like another training issue to me.
An enhanced version of the First Amendment is not necessary.


In one of our State parks the Ranger in charge insists he can tell a pro
from an amateur, just by looking at them. His theory is that if you use
a tripod and gray card, you must be a pro. A letter to his supervisor
solved the problem.

you should write a letter to the mayor of new york city, since they
also use a tripod as the differentiator.

Why!
Besides your informaton is outdated. So long as the tripod does not
cause an obstruction,you are OK

who defines what is an obstruction?

if a cop says you're obstructing something, are you going to argue or
pack your stuff and move?


Read the NYC code and the rules about photography. Then comment.

--
PeterN

Davoud:
What a looney bin Texas is! The First Amendment does not require
supplements for photographers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers.

Tony Cooper:
We should not have to have special legislation passed to ensure the
rights of photographers, but the hard facts are that police, park
authorities, security guards, and other "guardians" of public safety
are either unaware of our rights or don't give a ****.

The more ways our rights are spelled out, the better.

Wrong. If the police are violating the law do you seriously think that
a law saying that the police must not violate the law will stop them
from doing so? What is needed is better training, not more laws.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , PeterN
wrote:

In one of our State parks the Ranger in charge insists he can tell a pro
from an amateur, just by looking at them. His theory is that if you use
a tripod and gray card, you must be a pro. A letter to his supervisor
solved the problem.

you should write a letter to the mayor of new york city, since they
also use a tripod as the differentiator.

Why!
Besides your informaton is outdated. So long as the tripod does not
cause an obstruction,you are OK

who defines what is an obstruction?

if a cop says you're obstructing something, are you going to argue or
pack your stuff and move?

Read the NYC code and the rules about photography. Then comment.

it doesn't matter what the code says. if a cop tells you to move along,
you move along, and maybe *later* follow up on it.

telling the cop that such and such code says he's wrong is not going to
end well, especially in new york where cops choke people for no reason.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 06:46:47 -0500, None wrote:


The more ways our rights are spelled out, the better.


The more your rights are spelled out, the less you have....

I'm old enough to remember this joke when it was new:

"The difference between England and Germany is that in England, if
it is not forbidden, it is permitted. In Germany, if it is not
permitted it is forbidden."

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-01-22 00:09:16 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:54:17 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Davoud:
What a looney bin Texas is! The First Amendment does not require
supplements for photographers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers.

Tony Cooper:
We should not have to have special legislation passed to ensure the
rights of photographers, but the hard facts are that police, park
authorities, security guards, and other "guardians" of public safety
are either unaware of our rights or don't give a ****.

The more ways our rights are spelled out, the better.

Wrong. If the police are violating the law do you seriously think that
a law saying that the police must not violate the law will stop them
from doing so? What is needed is better training, not more laws.

I don't think, in most cases, that the police deliberately violate the
law in regard to photographers. I think that those who do, are acting
the way they do because they are unaware of the law.

Training, like law is changing and continuous (...or should be), and
not all officers believe they need any more training, refreshers, or
updates than they got at the academy to earn their badges.

There's no reason to suppose that any policeman is briefed on the
rights of the photographer unless there has been an incident or some
flap over a false arrest.

Incidents can & have led to additional mandatory training. Sometimes
that training can be as a result of Court action.

Even in Mayberry, there is far too much to
cover in the shift line-up (am I using the right term, Duck?) to get
into this.

We always used the term *Watch*. Usually 3 watches with 1st watch
covering the late night hours into the early hours of the following AM,
making it the 1st watch of that day.
Some agencies will use a 2 watch system.

If a new law is passed, that *new* law may be the subject of
additional training because it's new ground. It could be a good
thing.

All depends on departmental policy. Some agencies demand training
updates, some avoid them. Some even have divisions or departments
dedicated to training with names such as *Inservice Training*,
*Standards Maintenance*, and similar.

I do not personally feel that the police are the biggest problem in
this area. The average photographer is far more likely to be hassled
by a private security guard or park guard.

Rent-a-cops are a bigger problem, as they are severely ignorant of the
law and individual rights.


--
Regards,

Savageduck